
In Franklin Mut. Ins. Co. v. Castle Restoration & Constr., Inc., 2016 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2300 (App. Div. Oct. 20, 2016), the Appellate Division of the Superior Court affirmed the dismissal of a subrogating property insurer’s claim based on New Jersey’s entire controversy doctrine, a doctrine that requires a party to litigate all aspects of a controversy in a single legal proceeding. Although the decision is unpublished and based on the specific factual circumstances of the case, the decision sends a cautionary reminder to insurers involved in a declaratory judgment action that they should not wait for the declaratory judgment action to be decided before taking action to protect their subrogation rights.
As stated in Castle Restoration, Sevastyan Ploshchansky (Ploshchansky) owned a condominium unit in Harmon Cove Towers (HCT), a condominium community located in Hudson County, New Jersey. Franklin Mutual Insurance Company (FMI) issued a homeowner’s insurance policy for Ploshchansky’s condominium.
HCT hired Falcon Engineering Co., LLC (Falcon) to provide consulting engineering services in connection with a restoration and waterproofing project at HCT. HCT also hired Castle Restoration and Construction, Inc. (Castle) to perform renovations. During renovations, Ploshchansky’s unit suffered water and structural damage. Although Ploshchansky filed an insurance claim with FMI, FMI denied the claim.
In October of 2010, Ploshchansky filed suit in Hudson County (the Hudson County action) against HCT and Taylor Management Company, Inc. (Taylor), the management company for the condominium complex, alleging that his unit suffered water and structural damage due to water invading the premises as a result of the renovations undertaken by HCT. Subsequently, HCT filed a third-party complaint against Falcon and Castle. Ploshchansky, however, did not amend his complaint to sue Falcon or Castle directly.
In July of 2013, Ploshchansky filed an action in Passaic County (the Passaic County action) against FMI, alleging that FMI wrongfully refused to pay his claim. In accordance with Rule 4:5-1(b)(2), Ploshchansky’s attorney certified that the Hudson County action was pending. Similarly, in FMI’s answer, FMI’s attorney certified that FMI was aware of the Hudson County action. Although FMI initially sought to intervene in the Hudson County action, FMI subsequently withdrew its motion.
In May of 2014, the judge in the Passaic County action decided Ploshchansky’s coverage action in his favor and entered judgment against FMI. In addition, the judge ordered FMI to pay Ploshchansky $107,160 in damages. FMI did not appeal the decision.
On July 7, 2014, Ploshchansky settled his claims against HCT and HCT, having previously settled its third-party claim against Falcon, settled its claims against Castle in the Hudson County action. Thus, the trial court dismissed the Hudson County action.
Subsequently, FMI, as subrogee, filed a complaint in Hudson County against Falcon and Castle and moved to consolidate its case with the previously dismissed Hudson County action. After the trial court denied FMI’s request to consolidate the case with the dismissed Hudson County action, Falcon, relying on the entire controversy doctrine, moved to dismiss FMI’s complaint. The trial court, finding that FMI was fully aware of Ploshchansky’s action against HTC, that Falcon was a party to that action and that, despite this awareness, FMI allowed Ploshchansky to pursue his case to conclusion before seeking to file its separate complaint as Ploshchansky’s subrogee, granted Falcon’s motion. Holding that, under these circumstances, FMI had no claims to pursue, the court granted Falcon’s motion and dismissed the case.
On appeal, the Appellate Division held that, once Ploshchansky’s initial Hudson County action was resolved, any claim Ploshchansky had against Falcon was barred by the entire controversy doctrine. Thus, because Ploshchansky was barred from filing a claim, so was FMI who, as subrogee, stepped into Ploshchansky’s shoes. Even if, as FMI alleged, its subrogation claim did not arise until May of 2014, when it lost the Passaic County action and was ordered to pay Ploshchansky’s insurance claim, the Appellate Division held that, on July 31, 2014, when FMI filed its complaint against Falcon, FMI was standing in Ploshchansky’s shoes. Thus, because Ploshchansky’s claims against Falcon were barred and FMI had a fair and reasonable opportunity to litigate its claims against Falcon prior to the dismissal of Ploshchansky’s claims against Falcon in the Hudson County action, FMI’s claims were barred by the entire controversy doctrine.
Although the Appellate Division affirmed the decision dismissing FMI’s complaint, the court identified several actions FMI could have taken to protect its potential subrogation claim. First, FMI could have filed, in Hudson County, a motion to consolidate, seeking to consolidate the Hudson County and Passaic County actions. Upon consolidation, FMI could have moved to bifurcate the two matters, asking to have the coverage case resolved first, followed by Ploshchansky’s claims against Falcon. Second, FMI could have filed a timely motion to intervene in the Hudson County action to seek relief from Falcon, who was already a party to the action. In addition, to the extent that there was an issue with respect to whether FMI’s subrogation claim had, in fact, accrued against Falcon, FMI could have filed a complaint in Hudson County, as subrogee for Ploshchansky, asking a judge to resolve the issue. Finally, FMI could have filed a third-party action against Falcon in the Passaic County action.
Castle Restoration serves as a reminder that insurers involved in coverage disputes with their New Jersey insureds should not sit idly by when their insureds pursue claims against third-party tortfeasors. Rather, subrogating insurers should, even if they are in a dispute with their insureds over coverage issues, take action to protect their potential subrogation rights in one of the ways suggested by the Appellate Division.
Recent Posts
Categories
- Products Liability
- CPSC Recalls
- Construction Defects
- Statute of Limitations-Repose
- Minnesota
- California
- Experts – Daubert
- Maryland
- Jurisdiction
- CPSC Warning
- Rhode Island
- Experts - Reliability
- Podcast
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Workers' Compensation
- Uncategorized
- Negligence
- New York
- Contracts
- Cargo - Transportation
- Landlord-Tenant
- Sutton Doctrine
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Arbitration
- Texas
- Pennsylvania
- AIA Contracts
- Evidence
- Florida
- Economic Loss Rule
- Malpractice
- Wyoming
- Spoliation
- Tennessee
- Water Loss
- Indiana
- Michigan
- Comparative-Contributory Negligence
- Contribution-Apportionment
- Assignment
- Missouri
- Parties
- Public Policy
- Civil Procedure
- New Jersey
- Res Judicata
- Arkansas
- Damages
- Damages – Personal Property
- Product Liability
- Arizona
- Certificate of Merit
- Litigation
- West Virginia
- Oklahoma
- Builder's Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Georgia
- Illinois
- Insurable Interest
- Limitation of Liability
- Mississippi
- Made Whole
- Delaware
- Settlement
- Subrogation – Equitable
- Construction
- Premises Liability
- Joint or Several Liability
- Montana
- Duty
- Privity
- New Mexico
- Right to Repair Act
- Massachusetts
- Landlord
- Tenant
- Building Code
- Causation
- Architects-Engineers
Tags
- Subrogation
- Products Liability
- Construction Defects
- Product Liability
- Podcast
- Minnesota
- California
- Subro Sessions
- Experts
- Jurisdiction
- Maryland
- Texas
- Statute of Repose
- Jurisdiction - Personal
- Statute of Limitations - Accrual
- Experts – Daubert
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Rhode Island
- CPSC Recalls; Products Liability
- Contracts
- Negligence
- Civil Procedure
- Landlord-Tenant
- Experts - Reliability
- Pennsylvania
- Georgia
- Certificate of Merit
- Louisiana
- Amazon-eBay
- Made Whole
- Economic Loss Doctrine
- New York
- Florida
- Construction Contracts
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Illinois
- Experts – Qualifications
- New Jersey
- Parties
- Ohio
- Right to Repair Act
- Statute of Limitations - Tolling
- Contracts - Enforcement
- Arizona
- Sutton Doctrine
- West Virginia
- Indiana
- Design Defect
- Spoliation
- Water Damage
- Evidence
- Evidence - Hearsay
- Connecticut
- Damages
- Privity
- Condominiums
- Massachusetts
- Tennessee
- Statute of Limitations
- workers' compensation subrogation
- Limitation of Liability
- Apportionment
- Expert Qualifications
- Exculpatory Clause
- Amazon
- Arbitration
- Negligence – Duty
- Wisconsin
- Workers’ Compensation
- Public Policy
- Missouri
- Negligent Undertaking
- Statute of Limitations - Contractual
- Delaware
- Loss of Use
- Vehicles
- Indemnification
- Architects-Engineers
- Washington
- AIA Contract
- Warranty - Implied
- Res Judicata
- Settlement
- Statute of Limitations - Repose
- Improvement
- Michigan
- Malpractice
- Idaho
- Internet Sales
- Non-Party at Fault
- Spoliation – Fire Scene
- Gross Negligence
- Malfunction Theory; Design Defect
- Mississippi
- Statute of Limitations – Discovery Rule
- Independent Duty
- Cargo-Transportation
- Contribution
- Implied Warranty of Habitability
- Warranty - Construction
- North Carolina
- Utah
- Standing
- Comparative Fault
- Circumstantial Evidence
- Res Ipsa
- New Mexico
- Contracts - Formation
- Unconscionable
- Failure to Warn
- Manufacturing Defect
- Pleading
- Removal
- Entire Controversy Doctrine
- Motion to Intervene
- Subrogation; High-Net-Worth; Damages; Art; Cargo-Transportation; Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Nevada
- Virginia
- Products Liability – Risk-Utility
- Lithium-ion battery
- Burden of Proof
- Anti-Subrogation Rule; Wyoming; Landlord-Tenant; Sutton Doctrine
- New Hampshire
- Oklahoma
- Sanctions
- Builder’s Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Insurable Interest
- Joint-Tortfeasors
- Arkansas
- Kentucky
- Daubert
- Fire - Cigarettes
- Colorado
- Causation
- Third Party
- Discovery-Sanctions
- Accepted Work
- Malfunction Theory
- Montana
- Independent Contractor
- Privilege
- Betterment
- Damages-Code Upgrades
- Insurance Coverage
- First Party Claims
- Forum-Venue
- Warranty – Express
- AIA Contracts
- Anti-Indemnity Statutes
- Products Liability - Foreseeability
- Discovery - Experts
- MCS-90
- Substantial Completion
- Reimbursement
- Assignment
- Counterclaim
- Products Liability; Malfunction Theory
- Economic Loss Rule
- Unfair Trade Practices
- Evidence – Probative Value
- Parties – Real Party in Interest
- Status of Repose
- Evidence - Public
- Construction Defects - Fixtures
- Subrogation – Equitable
- Additional Insured
- Trespass
- Contract
- COVID-19
- Incorporation by Reference
- Damages – Emotional Distress
- Oregon
- Third Party Spoliation
- No-Fault Subrogation
- Products Liability; Mississippi
- Inverse Condemnation
- Jury Instructions
- Food and Beverage
- South Carolina
- California Court of Appeals Holds Subrogating Carrier Cannot Assert Claims of Its Suspended Insured
- Debt Collection
- Medical Benefits
- Montreal Convention
- Immunity
- Products Li
- Wyoming
- Release
- Liens
- Kansas
Authors
Archives
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- December 2013
- August 2013
- May 2013
- February 2013